[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Pantydraco and the worst dinosaur name

  I've placed my argument and views in broader context here: 

  I'm also only linking this here because my comments tend to become 
excessively long.


Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 

> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:26:56 +0100
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Pantydraco and the worst dinosaur name
> > The worst dinosaur name is obviously *Megapnosaurus*, which is
> > apparently so distasteful that hardly anyone uses it. Or did I just
> > miss the announcement that *Syntarsus* was never preoccupied after
> > all? (Tykoski & Rowe 2004 list *Megapnosaurus* as a junior synonym
> > of *Syntarsus*, then proceed to use *Syntarsus* for the rest of the
> > chapter... Carrano & Sampson 2008 use *Syntarsus* exclusively,
> > without comment... ???)
> This is completely unacceptable; I'm with Jaime on this one.
> At the same time I agree with avoiding the name *Megapnosaurus*. Not
> just because it fails etymology (we had the discussion here on the list;
> it should have been *Megalapnoosaurus*); not just because of the
> sentiment behind it (paraphrasing: "to us entomologists, it's just a big
> dead lizard, har har" -- for crying out loud, "bird" or even "crocodile"
> would have been less wrong than "lizard"); but also for what led to
> publication. As we learned on this list, the authors first did what is
> right, which is to try to inform Raath that his name was preoccupied.
> But how did they do this? By sending him one letter. The stupidity of
> sending a letter to a white man in Zimbabwe in 1999 is hard to top. As
> they should have expected, they didn't receive an answer; then someone
> mistakenly told them Raath was dead, and they stopped contacting Raath's
> colleagues and went ahead with publication. All this while, we were told
> on this list, Raath had noticed *Syntarsus* was preoccupied and had
> prepared a paper with another replacement name. And there was desking of
> heads and palming of faces.
> For the time being, again like Jaime, I'm for lumping: *Coelophysis
> rhodesiensis*. After all, it's not as if any other reason for lumping or
> splitting genera were any better -- any less subjective, any less petty
> -- from a scientific point of view.
> I hear *"Syntarsus" kayentakatae* will be redescribed anyway and will
> receive a completely new genus name. Can someone confirm this?
> > *Pantydraco* at least has a cooler name than its close relative
> > *Ignavusaurus,* the "coward lizard."
> Big failure at elementary Latin grammar in that last one. The stem of
> ignavus ("idle, powerless, inept, weak, slothful, lazy, cowardish;
> exhausting"; noun: "coward") isn't ignavu-, it's ignavo-. There are no
> adjectives with a stem in u- (and very few nouns). See also
> *Cristatusaurus* and *Lurdusaurus*, .